A BRITISH APPEALS COURT has ruled that the United Kingdom’s broad counterterrorism laws breach fundamental rights in a case involving the seizure of encrypted documents from David Miranda, the partner of Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald, at a London airport in 2013.

Miranda (pictured above) was detained and interrogated for nine hours at Heathrow Airport in August 2013 while he was assisting Greenwald’s reporting on documents about government mass surveillance leaked by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Last year, the High Court in London dismissed a legal challenge brought by Miranda over the case on the grounds that it reasonably regarded his actions as “terrorism” as defined by the law. However, that decision was partially overturned Tuesday by the Court of Appeal in a ruling that will be viewed as a major victory for press freedom campaigners.

The ruling finds that the police followed the law when detaining Miranda under a controversial section of the Terrorism Act, Schedule 7. However, crucially, it asserts that the statute itself “is not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise” and is “incompatible” with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides the right to “receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The Court of Appeal’s most senior judge, Lord Dyson MR, stated in the ruling that he accepted there were already some “constraints on the exercise of the power,” but he believed that these “do not afford effective protection of journalists’ Article 10 rights.” He added:

The central concern is that disclosure of journalistic material (whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s source) undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect Article 10 rights. If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest. That is why the confidentiality of such information is so important.

Miranda’s appeal was supported by a press freedom litigation fund established by First Look Media, The Intercept’s parent company. It was also supported by the rights groups Liberty, Article 19, English PEN, and the Media Defense Initiative. The latter three organizations argued in a joint submission to the court that the treatment of Miranda “raised very serious concerns about the adequacy of the safeguards available in the United Kingdom for those undertaking, or assisting in, journalist work in the public interest, or their sources.”

Miranda, a Brazilian national, was detained in London at the height of the international fallout from the Snowden revelations, which featured major disclosures about British mass surveillance programs. At the time of his August 2013 detention, Miranda was transporting a batch of the Snowden documents from one reporter to another — from Laura Poitras in Berlin to Greenwald in Rio de Janeiro. Poitras had been working on stories sourced from the Snowden material with the New York Times and Der Spiegel, while Greenwald was reporting for TheGuardian, which had paid for Miranda’s trip. (Greenwald, who was then a columnist for the London-based newspaper, left in October 2013 to co-found The Intercept with Poitras.)

Shortly after Miranda was detained, British authorities claimed that encrypted material seized from him included 58,000 “highly classified” British documents derived from the Snowden leaks, 75 of which they said they had “reconstructed” and been able to decrypt and view. The seizure of the documents led to the London police counterterrorism division launching a criminal investigation that focused in part on journalists who had handled the files. The probe, which was designated the code name “Operation Curable,” remained ongoing as recently as November of last year, The Intercept has previously reported.

To justify their seizure of the documents, British authorities had argued that publication of the Snowden files was itself a terrorist act. A memo circulated by security services prior to Miranda’s detention asserted that “the disclosure [of the Snowden documents], or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.” This position was seemingly accepted by the High Court in February 2014, which ruled in favor of the government in a ruling staunchly criticized by press freedom groups such as Reporters without Borders. It also appeared to concern the U.K. government’s independent reviewer of terrorism laws, David Anderson, who warned in a July 2014 report that the High Court ruling had set a precedent that could mean in some cases that the “writing of a book, an article or a blog may therefore amount to terrorism.”

The appeals court’s judgment, however, appears to overturn this aspect of the High Court’s earlier ruling, significantly reining in its conflation of journalism with terrorism. It makes clear that under the European Convention on Human Rights, journalists are entitled to legal protections and should not be subjected to arbitrary stops and searches under counterterrorism laws. The law used to detain Miranda will now have to be changed so that journalists are better protected in the future.

Kate Goold, a lawyer for the London firm Bindmans who represented Miranda in the case, said that Tuesday’s ruling “emphasizes the importance of interpreting terrorism with its ordinary natural meaning to ensure that legitimate public interest journalism is not stifled through the use of draconian powers.”

“The notion of a journalist becoming an ‘accidental terrorist’ has been wholeheartedly rejected,” Goold said. “We welcome this court’s principled and decisive ruling that Schedule 7 needs to come in line with other legislation to ensure that the seizure of journalistic material is protected by judicial safeguards.”

Responding to the news Tuesday, Miranda tweeted that he was “Thrilled with the court ruling!” He added: “My purpose was to show U.K.’s terrorism law violates press freedoms. And journalism isn’t ‘terrorism.’ We won!”

The British government could attempt to launch a challenge against the Court of Appeal’s ruling with the U.K.’s Supreme Court. However, it was not immediately clear whether it intends to pursue the case further.

A spokesperson for the government’s Home Office insisted in a statement Tuesday that the appeals court’s ruling regarding Miranda’s detention “supports the action taken by police to protect national security.”

The spokesperson added: “We also note the court’s decision that Schedule 7 [of the Terrorism Act], as in force at the time of this incident, did not provide sufficient protection against the examination of journalistic material.

“The government is constantly working to ensure our counterterrorism powers are both effective and fair. That is why in 2015 we changed the Code of Practice for examining officers to instruct them not to examine journalistic material at all. This goes above and beyond the court’s recommendations in this case.”

Update: January 19, 9:45 a.m.This post has been updated to include comment from the U.K. government.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Contact the author:

“the disclosure [of the Snowden documents], or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.” WTF How many behaviours could they apply that to?

David Miranda a terrorist my arse! The only terrorist in this case is the British Government using fear to clamp down on journalists and those who value their civil liberties.

” The government is constantly working to ensure our counterterrorism powers are both effective and fair. That is why in 2015 we changed the Code of Practice for examining officers to instruct them not to examine journalistic material at all. This goes above and beyond the court’s recommendations in this case.”

By George, someone finally sees the light ! Now, pls, it would be nice if someone could show me the text of the Code of Practice so I can see for myself that there are no loopholes buried in an obscure page somewhere in it.

“the disclosure [of the Snowden documents], or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.”

According to this, wouldn’t newspaper editorials, writing public letters, lobbying and political advertising all equate to terrorism?

I find it chilling to discover in recent years that expansive definitions of terrorism that seem lifted from the statutes of despotic nations are rife in free world democracies. The MSM should be all over this and they’re not.

Here in Canada, we had Bill C51 passed into law a few months ago with much hullabaloo. It was all about our Conservative government holding us “safe”. However markedly less coverage was given to the Bill’s definition of terrorism that would ensnare domestic activism, protest, and civil disobedience. This would put those falling under the designation under the purvue of our Security Service which operates in secret and would be empowered to employ “disruption tactics”, as opposed to the police which operate lawfully and in full view of the courts.

The backstory to this is that our Conservative government, (recently defeated), viewed itself as enablers for the resource industry. No excess was beyond them. Climate change was a myth. Scientists were musselled. The contents of scientific libraries were tossed into dumpsters. Resource company executives were given secret access to the C.S.E., our mass surveillance agency. Oversight bodies were emasculated. This and much more provoked massive public protest that threatened their authoritarian rule and the free hand of the resource companies. And the government had fared badly in it’s attempt to use the police and courts to stiffle protest in the past.

This approach, legislating expansive definitions of terrorism in order to hobble or defeat democracy for their own purposes, is corrupt at best and likely treasonous. Again, where is our MSM on this issue. This is a critical matter.

Billionaires now own most MSM, and even many less main stream outlets like First Look Media. 67 of these billionaires now have as much wealth as the poorest half of the planet, and typically pay lower taxes than the poor while their industries are tax-break subsidized. They are soon to be allowed by treaties like TPP and WTO law to continue draining everyone else’s wallet to preserve their profit margins — no matter how destructive, toxic or market manipulative the may be to OUR world. Human rights and constitutional laws everywhere are now also being subverted and manipulated trying to prevent this from ever being changed, protecting their empire of greed. A truly free press is their natural enemy.

That should’ve read pay lower tax rates, not lower taxes. Poverty wage workers in America often pay a higher percentage of income in taxes than every hedge-fund managers, or any billionaires primarily invested in the subsidized banking and energy sectors.

Warmest congratulations and appreciation to David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald, as well as to all who supported them. A good day, too, for freedom of the press, journalists and our collective human rights.

Happy some measure of justice prevailed- you two trail blazers deserve nothing but the highest journalism honors for your principled efforts at elevating, at all costs;awareness of injustice globally.
I thank you with utmost sincerity.

To see the inherent weakness of the government’s position in the first ruling of the case (High Court) which this ruling effectively overturns, consider the following commentary by former home secretary David Davis:

” Former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis MP has sent more on his reaction to the Miranda ruling:

Today’s judgment in the high court in the case of the detention of David Miranda is to my mind disappointing.

That the court has found that his detention “fell properly within schedule 7” [of the Terrorism Act 2000] is of concern as there can be no suggestion that Mr Miranda was a terrorist or that he was seeking to abet terrorism and it was for these purposes that this power was given to the police and the security agencies.

As Lord Falconer, the former Labour lord chancellor, wrote last year: “Schedule 7 powers can only be used ‘for the purpose of determining’ whether the detained person is a terrorist.”

When the 2000 Terrorism Act was debated, the House of Commons did not consider at all these powers would be used against journalists.

Much less did it consider that it would be used dragnet-fashion – almost 70,000 times last year.

I note that in his judgment Lord Justice Laws acknowledged that he accepted that “the schedule 7 stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom” and that “the fact that the outcome of a schedule 7 examination is open-ended is (I think) of some importance”. These aspects of the judgment indicate that it is likely to be overturned by the supreme court and indeed the ECHR.

This case is yet another example of heavy-handed overuse of terrorism powers that parliament entrusted the agencies with, notably stop and search, retention of DNA and the increasing mass storage of our metadata.

We have to question whether these actions of government agencies are actually increasing the security of the British people more than they are undermining our traditional liberties. ”

Congratulations to press freedom and the principle of freedom ofspeech.

This is the equivalent of a judge in Saudi Arabia stating that executing a blogger probably doesn’t meet international human rights standards, but he has no power to over-rule the King.

So the well meaning authoritarians who are mindlessly cheering the decision because it shows the detention of David Miranda was legal, should reconsider. There was never any doubt that the British Government had the power to legalize whatever it chose to do. But the statement that the law itself violates basic human rights is an act of rebellion on the part of the judge, and obviously should be punished.

An opinion on how the European Court of Human Rights would view the affair is obviously outside this judge’s jurisdiction. Therefore it is an egregious action, “designed to influence a government […] for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.”

You’ve failed to understand. The court ruled that Miranda’s detention was consistent with the Terrorism Act Schedule 7, but that Schedule 7 was itself unlawful, because it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. Just as laws are sometimes passed in the US which are later found to be unconstitutional, and thus illegal. Essentially, judge Dyson has reached exactly the same conclusion as Glen Greenwald, Widney Brown and the numerous other commentators who condemned Miranda’s detention.

Any political activity is terrorism, since it “is designed to influence a government […] for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.”

Parliament is Sovereign, which means it is the supreme legal authority in the UK with the authority to create or end any law. There is no restriction on what such a law might be. Parliament could pass a law to kill every first born son in the Kingdom if it so wished.

The UK created a Supreme Court in 2009 (previously the House of Lords was the UK’s final court of appeal), to obfuscate this fact. However, there are no higher legal principles in the UK upon which to judge legislation, since it lacks a constitution. So a Supreme Court in the US sense, which can find laws to be unconstitutional, does not exist.

Similarly, the Parliament is free to sign any international agreement it wishes. However, the ultimate authority for deciding whether its actions are in compliance with the agreement is Parliament itself. When the European Human Rights Court rules against them, Parliament can choose to ignore it, or alternatively, declare itself to be in compliance with the spirit of the agreement.

The UK finds it useful to promote the fiction that it recognizes the human rights of its subjects. That is the only reason this court found the courage to make the timorous suggestion that the law should be changed.

I find it very telling if altogether unsurprising that BBC World News has even yet (18:30 Tuesday, UK time) to report on this news item (- and this, despite of course the story’s international import).

I am confused by this article and the court’s ruling. Did the court rule that the detention of Mr. Miranda for nine hours was legal under British law? Did they also rule the content of his computer was protected as journalism that did not directly contribute to terrorism, as Mr. Miranda and Mr. Greenwald claims? The fact that out of 58,000 documents, only fifty-eight were “reconstructed” to show—-what?

It’s a strange ruling: The court ruled that the detention itself was lawful under the law as written at the time. But it’s saying that the law itself needs to be changed because the incident has exposed how it’s “incompatible” with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They’re going to have to change the law so that an incident such as this one with Miranda couldn’t happen in the future.

They said that the Terrorism Act authorized the security services to do what they did, BUT

They also said that the Terrorism Act as written violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European convention on human rights (specifically free expression and a free press), and thus must be changed by the Parliament.

It’s just like when a US court says: yes, the law purports to allow the government to do this, but the law itself is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t allow any law to permit this.

That was the key point of the appeal: to say that the use of this Terrorism Act in this way violates fundamental rights. The court agreed with that point, and thus overruled the lower court’s decision in favor of the government.

I have a very hard time believing that they “reconstructed” anything unless the documents are encrypted one by one with different encryption keys or algorithms, where a few then were weak? This can of course be verified by whomever encrypted the documents.

I suppose the point they wanted to make was to prove that they came from the Mr. Snowden batch. If that’s the case though, they didn’t know what was in the files when they apprehended Mr. Miranda, but had no issue with “reconstructing” his files, which could just as well be something else than what they were looking for. Hideous in my mind.

“the disclosure [of the documents], or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.”

The twisting and turning necessary to come to the definition above would make a nest of bagworms blush. Unless they’re trying to convince us that the influence intended was to result in the UK government doubling and tripling down on their already fascistic tendencies, then that bit is balderdash sprinkled with codswollop, bloody bollocks and every other disdainful Britishism under the sun.

When the ideological political causes the British government is protecting are not fully understood by the populace they are imposing them on then they live in a system that no longer supports the application of the word “democracy” in any way, shape or form. The only terror happening here is the sweaty knicker-twisting these authoritarian hacks experience each time a bit more of their lies get exposed.

“Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that the detention of the partner of a journalist who helped bring leaks from former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden to world attention was lawful.

British police detained David Miranda at Heathrow Airport in August 2013 when he landed in London en route from Berlin to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil and seized material including electronic media containing 58,000 documents.

Miranda, the partner of American journalist Glenn Greenwald, had argued that such detentions would have “an inevitable chilling effect on journalistic expression”, but the British court said his detention did not break the law.

“Mr Miranda’s appeal against the use of the power in his case is dismissed,” the court said in a summary of its decision.

“The court rejects Mr Miranda’s argument that the use of the stop power against him was an unjustified and disproportionate interference.”

Miranda had said the police had acted unlawfully and breached his right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, the court did say that the clause of the Terrorism Act under which Miranda was detained was incompatible with the convention, which protects freedom of speech in relation to journalistic materials.

“It is not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise and I would, therefore, allow the appeal in relation to that issue,” judges wrote, suggesting the British parliament should consider the matter.

Like all good rulings it had something for everyone. It found that the UK breached David Miranda’s human rights, but that he had no human rights under UK law.

This probably explains why the UK was so eager to have Saudi Arabia installed as the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council. It’s necessary to wean the world away from the European and American conception of human rights.

Benito, you bring up another confusing story; that of KSA being chair of UNHRC…WTF! I know that just weeks prior (perhaps months) ISR was all lovey dovey with KSA (public knowledge) i felt then that some arm twisting and ass kissing were going on ~ turns out grooming the epitome of Human Wrongs was ISR’s intent to fit a monster into a sheep’s suit.
And here you assert that the UK was a force in this tale of human depravity = KSA chair of UNHRC ~ can you add anything to this ~ i realize it’s off topic.

“Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that the detention of the partner of a journalist who helped bring leaks from former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden to world attention was lawful.

A court rules that the Terrorism Act used to detain him violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Convention on Human Rights – to which the UK is bound – and you and a handful of government-mimicking outlets try to depict that as a win for the government. That’s just hilarious.

In fairness, the part about violating ECHR is boilerplate inserted into every judgment in the UK. They do this prophylactically, to save the European Court the trouble of having to make a ruling. From Wikipedia:

By the end of 2010, the European Court of Human Rights had, in 271 cases, found violations of the European Convention of Human Rights by the United Kingdom.

Countries that describe themselves as a ‘Kingdom’ don’t tend to score very well on human rights for some reason, although they’re well represented on the UN Human Rights Council.

Benito, some astounding acumen of the UK same same KSA interesting ~ (i’ve always had that gut feeling about ‘kingdoms’) also wanted to add what an interesting photo / good looking chap /charming fellow, Mr. Miranda. is he back at work?

That article – the one from the Huffington Post – begins: “The British anti-terrorism law used to seize journalistic material about Edward Snowden’s surveillance revelations breaches human rights law, a judge has said in a landmark case.”

A court rules that the Terrorism Act used to detain him violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Convention on Human Rights – to which the UK is bound – and you and a handful of government-mimicking outlets try to depict that as a win for the government. That’s just hilarious.

It just goes to reinforce the old adage that no matter how promising the “new – person, system, government” initially looks……………………………..somehow “the new boss” always ends up looking an awfully lot like “the old boss”.

Mensch comes across as rabid. I don’t recall ever putting myself through hearing and watching her speak chasing her tail on camera before viewing that video. I’ve only read her tweets and some of her longer form twists & shouts, which are about equal to how she presentented herself in that video.

Are you meaning here to allude to our dear Louise, the one who makes frequent cameos in comments @ The Intercept? If so, you must be joking. As mad as she is, she’s nowhere near so bad as this utterly, utterly toxic & asinine Louise Mensch, as here immortalized on YouTube.

This is another example of European human rights law interfering with British justice. In Britain, rights are conferred by the Crown and can be revoked the same way. The concept of inalienable rights was concocted by France and the United States over two hundred and fifty years ago, in order to provide cover for depriving Britain of its rightful colonies in the new world.

Britain must immediately withdraw from the EU and then appeal this decision. A government which can’t arbitrarily declare anyone it dislikes to be a terrorist, has lost its sovereignty.

David, Hats off to you and Glenn—a huge congratulations! (I was the cowboy who met you both in Dallas when Glenn was speaking.) If you’re ever in Aspen, Colorado—dinner is on me. leemulcahyphd@gmail.com

Great. But will Miranda, Greenwald, and Poitras now automatically get all their stuff back, intact at that? Or would they have to sue, once again, for its safe return? What about a formal letter of apology, btw, signed by that fascist bitch-on-wheels, the so-called Home Secretary Theresa May?